Smashing Pumpkins

It is the best part of a year since this blog last bloviated.
Well, we are now hanging out the shingle again. The reasons for the lacuna are too boring to go into.

...Unlike this story from Yahoo a day or so ago.

Pow! Smack in the middle. Nose!

Pow!! Upper and to left. Eye!

Pow!!! Upper and to right. Other eye!

Powpowpowpowpow!!!!! Below in a line. Mouth!

I have often pondered the mysterious American love of guns, but suddenly it all comes clear. They are to make funny faces on pumpkins with. 

This makes perfect sense, within the context of America. 

A pity though, that this instructional video only came to light after the shooting of Trayvon Martin - or Mr. Zimmerman, the intrepid gunman, might have used it as a logical reason for blowing the lad away: 

"I mistook him for a pumpkin." 

Why did you do that? 

''Because he was unarmed, like pumpkins are. And kind of orangey-brownish coloured." Happily for American justice, such a defence was not required. 

Although it is no less reasonable than the one employed.

Gina and Evelyn and God Revisited.

Gina: Unconvincing as The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I thought.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9840851/Gina-Lollobrigidas-ex-lover-says-she-arranged-their-proxy-wedding-herself.html

A disturbing story. How many times might I have been married when I wasn't there?


 

 

Well, as if that wasn't enough, Toad has folded in his resolution not to comment on CP&S. And is now filled with shame for his irresolution and rashness.

But it's simply not worth it. And I shouldn't do it. But I am weak.

 

Not only that, but I've started re-watching Brideshead Revisited on Youtube.

This is likely to prove practically a lifetime's work, between firewood cutting and dog walking, as it is 14 hours long in all,

I have seen about four hours worth so far.

It was first shown in 1981, and is a magnificent achievement.

In these sordid and crisis-ridden times, the mere idea of such a vast and costly project would be considered a crazy dream.

 

Watching it today, the splendour and near perfection of it all, the beautiful sets, the quality of the acting, the elegant direction, I feel rather like some gawking peasant in the dark ages looking at the Aqueduct in Segovia, and wondering what kind of superhuman beings could have wrought such a marvel.

It's what television drama ought to be about. It covers, as far as I can see, every line and nuance of the Waugh novel, something no cinema movie could even hint at, then or ever.

I did wonder if such a comparatively trivial work was worth the effort, but that is, I think, not a fair objection.

Yes, the characters are - almost without exception, detestable - but that only makes the whole thing irresistably watchable, and true to the source material.

 

And yes, the deathbed re-conversion of Lord Marchmain is absurd. But it is absurd in the book, as well, along with Waugh's philistine snobbery and pretension.

 

I suppose if it was re-made today, it would be called, "I'm a Catholic celebrity - get me out of here!" Because that's the theme, really. Some things never change..

 

 

 

 



Meanwhile...

A person who shall be nameless, Jim - in fact - has written asking me why I no longer post on Catholicism Pure & Simple.

A look at the latest sample will put you straight, Jim lad.

Wherin a certain Father Dwight D. Longenecker, (I kid you not) offers his eager readers a sample of his latest book which appears to be a brutal and unscrupulous rip-off of Poor Old, Long-Dead (half a century), Protestant, C.S.Lewis's Screwtape Letters.

This is what literary depths Catholicism has sunk to since Lewis's death.

This is the best their intellectuals can do, it seems. Dig up Lewis, dust him off, and set him shambling around his fevered inner world of demons, hobgoblins, boogy men, devils, and afeets (my favourites).

Better hope Cecil's lawyers are dead as well. Lawyers can be the very devil.

What persuaded me that I was not only wasting my time, which is inexpensive, but also wasting my brain - which is also inexpensive, but in dangerously short supply these days -  on CP&S, was an offer of a very nasty looking crucifix for, as far as I remember, 17 euros, which had an indulgence built in.
At which point I saw the light, or, as the Faithful would have it - the dark.

I still look at it most days, (CP&S, that is, not the crucifix) and am mildly interested to see that John Henry, an old chum on there, is - like me and the dog in the Sherlock Holmes story, no longer barking in the night, at least not a present.

Maybe just too busy, though, wrestling with The Devil.
I can sympathise.

(Is it necessary to believe in Satan to be a Catholic? I can't remember. Probably.)

Answers in Genesis

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/man-image-of-god

Many thanks to Kathleen on CP&S for running this link on there.

It sets out, neatly and concisely, a very great many of the objections I have regarding organised religion.

It's this kind of material that makes me increasingly confident in the total implausibility of it all.

Here's just one example:"True, the earth and animals too have a place in God’s economy, but essentially, the world was created as a place for man to live (e.g. Romans 8:19–22)." A year or so, I would probably have laughed that off with a mild joke. Now it seems open and pernicious nonsense and the root of much contemporary evil. I honestly believe that and, instinctively and viscerally, disagree with the idea.

And then the author, one Prof. Randle-Short, apparently - gravely tells us:"Adam mirrored Christ the man of Galilee even more nearly than Christ would have resembled his own half-brothers. If this is so, it seems almost blasphemy to consider Adam sired by a shambling ape."
It would be, I suggest, hard to find any ape more shambling than, for example, myself. Or Randle-Short himself, I shouldn't wonder.
Most apes are very nimble indeed. Any fool knows that.

Since I retired, about eight years back, I've been thinking about God, as we envisage Him, a very great deal and the more I do so the less likely it all seems to become. An honest God may well be the noblest work of man, but we haven't succeeded so far, I believe.

I'm also beginning to think Dawkins is emerging as a major figure of our times, and for history. Rather like Huxley.
I might ultimately be proved wrong of course, but I'll be long dead and won't care.

The article above is forced  - yet again - to dig up and dust off poor old C.S.Lewis, dead himself these many years, and set him tottering shakily about, muttering to himself: "..A clever waxwork can be made so like a man that for a moment it deceives us; the great portrait which is far more deeply like him does not."
So what? A painting is not like a waxwork, We know that.

Well, what's the alternative? Chesterton? And Lewis not even able to swallow Catholicism on his own behalf.
Did try though. Inbedded tribal loyalties were too strong.
That's what it's all about, really.

Dawkins is alive. I think he will go into history rather like Shaw, Wells and Russell. Quoted less and less frequently as the years pile up, but respected.
And remembered.
Why do the Christians, let alone the Catholics, currently have nobody of his stature?
Can it be the "material" they are obliged to work with?

Under the skin

"There is still an enormous abyss in what truly distinguishes man from ape, primarily man’s ability to “know” and “love” God. Only man was created in His Image and Likeness."...Declares one of my friends on CP&S. It would be bad manners to post a piece like the following on a Catholic blog, I think. Imposing on its tolerance. But it needs to be said

And there is still an emormous abyss between lobsters and horses, or rabbits and sharks, or oak trees and mosquitos.
But they all have a common ancestor, along with the detestable human being..
So, we must all be made in God's likeness, if any of us are: from ant to aardvark..
Could God be a giant lobster?

But I think that would be looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

The logical way to look at it is, that if the CP&S crowd are correct and we are made in God's likeness, then God must be a semi-sane, vicious, illogical, cruel, arrogant, aggressive and ugly monster like his beloved and chosen humans.
Gorillas are none of those things, sadly for them. So, no "immortality" for them.
Even if they are exceptionally badly behaved.

Each of us humans God loves to bits, it seems, and "wants" us to be happy.. No matter how disturbingly near some of us are to His own image.

Personally, I'd far sooner spend as much of my time as possible in the company of less intelligent, less nasty, less self-deceiving, and better looking members of our great world family of animals.
Like dogs or monkeys, lizards or goats.

We are the 5th ape. There's still a slender chance one of the other four might yet evolve into "consciousness" in a decent fashion.
And become immortal as well. When you think about it, there¡s no more practical chance of mankind "knowing and loving" God than there is of a flea "knowing and loving" a dog.

I suppose that what it boils down to, is even if we are made in God's image, there's no reason to condemn any of us to eternal damnation on our looks.

Education: A Wonderful Thing Wasted on the Young

I'm still brooding on the video of Dawkins from the earlier post here.

Dawkins naturally caught some flack recently - and many a wail of "Persecution," when he said that giving a child a Catholic education was a form of child abuse.
It does seem a bit  far-fetched, but when you think about it a little more, he has a point.
But that goes not only for Catholic "education" but for any other kind of "education" with an agenda. Many Muslims, Jews, Lutherans, Mormons, Quivering Brethren, whatever - choose to ensure their kids get their heads stuffed with the particular brand of nonsense to which they suscribe.
Would any Catholic want his kid's head to be stuffed with Quivering Brethren nonsense? I think not!
And vice versa.

I speak as one whose own head was duly stuffed by teams of nuns and priests from the age of five.
At seven I was told that, if I died in mortal sin, I would burn in Hell forever.
It wasn't intended to be cruel, but was it? It certainly rattled me a bit at the time.
And I'm reminded of one of the ladies on CP&S who, at enormous expense, no doubt, sent her boy to a top Catholic public school to be subjected to the requisite stuffing.
Unfortunately, by some mischance, or mischief, one of the masters there was an Atheist, and stuffed the lad's head with that, to great effect and much dismay.
Nonsense, to be sure, but the wrong brand of nonsense!

This would be a shocking state of affairs were it not so funny.

I'm also minded to re-read "Hard Times," where Gradgrind insists on children being taught only facts. This also seems a bit limited, but when you consider what religious, jingoistic, racist, sexist, tripe children have been force-fed over the years, maybe he had a point.

In one of Waugh's "Sword of Honour" novels, Guy Crouchback's father, an ex-schoolmaster, is told that ...
"This school's aim is to make the boys fit to succeed in the modern world."
"That seems to me to be a very wicked thing to do," is his reply.

So, what should children actually be taught?
Maths? Surely.
Reading? Surely.
Hand writing? Why bother?
Art? Hard to teach.
Music? Maybe.
History? Why?
Science? Too controversial?
How to navigate the net? Probably.

I have several schoolteacher friends. Their input here would be much appreciated.

Darwin/Dawkins for Dummies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptV9sNezEvk

I found the first seven minutes, as Dawkins talks with the youngsters, deeply depressing. But not deeply surprising.

But then, I wondered, why was it that at their age or even younger, I was almost eager to dump what I had been taught about God, which was already becoming hard to swallow? Must thank my Catholic upbringing for that, I suppose.

I remember being in the Natural History Museum at no more than 12 years old, possibly  onlly 9 or 10, looking at the skeleton of a snake and thinking that it was remarkably similar to that of a human, minus arms and legs, of course, but a skull and a backbone.

Nowadays I can see that Natural Selection does not rule out the existence of a god, or gods. But it certainly puts it into question, big time.
The real religious problem it raises is when - and how - does the "Immortal Soul" whatever that is, get in?

The video here has given me increased respect for Richard Dawkins. It's one of three, all well done, and Dawkins himself is a top class presenter - dedicated to his subject, but not carried away; lucid, articulate and compelling.

But what strikes me as truly admirable is that  he is willing to subject himself to a variation of intellectual martrydom by voluntarily speaking with the most detestable people imaginable to pursue the truth.
Saintly conduct it seems to me. And his old-fashioned, British good manners never seem to fail him.
Clearly what set him off on his anti-god crusade originally was the increasing, blinkered, vicious imbecility of anti-Darwinists.

He, and that includes we, won't win.
Mindless stupidity will always trump reason.
Always has. 

The World: It might have been made for us

We always had Grace At Mealtimes in our house...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EUytEX_XkE


Donald, on here points out something I heard the late Christopher Hitchens assert in a in a old YouTube debate I was watching only the day before: That the idea of a "virgin birth" might well spring from a misstranslation, as what Mary actually was, was an "unmarried woman" rather than a necessarily a virgin.

Well, maybe, but I haven't got that far into Holy Scripture yet. Nor, to be honest, am I ever likely to.
 I'm still trying to cope with the idea that the entire universe was put here for the sole benefit of Homo Sapiens.

The Moon, for example was created, designed, actually, by God simply in order that people could write silly songs about it. Intelligent design at work. Right down to the fact that it rhymes with "June."
Did you really think that was an accident? No, mate. All part of God's Great Plan.

To begin at the beginning, in fact. Where God says, "Let there be light" before He's created any light sources. Of course, it's not to be taken literally, well not that bit, anyway. Other bits, yes.

Difficult.

Again, can it be concidence that Dog is God spelled backwards? Apparently, yes. Or the Spanish for "Dog" would be "Soid."

So the question is, how are we to know what to take seriously, and what not?
Listen to what God tells us, apparently. But then, how are we to know if what God tells us is really...Oh, shut up, Toad.

Islam for Dummies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlFYHsTzoT4

I thought this well worth watching. The presenter is a bit off-putting, to me at least, but it's very well done. Takes an hour, though, so make a sandwich first.
The whole series is rather good.

Interesting to think that if you'd had the misfortune to have been born in Europe around 750, the least horrible, most nearly civilised, place you could find to live would have been Cordoba.

Although I no longer "post " on CP&S, the offerings there are getting splendidly loonier and loonier and the urge to comment is correspondingly powerful.
However, my strength is as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure. So I will resist.

One of the latest is about a wax figure of Saint John Bosco with, apparently, some bits of bones and tissue of the saint stuck inside, which is travelling Europe to be venerated.
Take a look. The interior of Liverpool Cathedral (familiarly known locally as "Paddy's Wigwam")  in the accompanying photos seems to be lit like a rather tacky disco.

Sunday Morning Fever.

It is advertised as the British leg of a world tour. Bit like Black Sabbath. No mention of a Tee-shirt, though.

STOP PRESS: CP&S has now topped even that with one on profanity. Toad is - naturally- lost for appropriate words, by Jove.

.

Gay's Not The Word. From Now On, At Least...

Catholicism in a nutshell. A little, brown, probably poor, lady crouches to kiss the massive and imposing ring of the georgeously and sumptously-clad leader of Catholics in England. Whose hat comes to a point. Deliberately.

 

 

It is very difficult to adhere to my resolution not to post any more on The Catholic blog, especially when the latest story is that Gay Masses in Soho have been banned by the man in the picture above.

 

Now, you and I know that Archbishop Nichols pictured above is not actually in "drag," or "cross-dressing" here, like some of the erstwhile worshippers in Soho, itself the notorious moral sewer of London.  

But there are those who might just imagine such an absurd thing.

 

Ignorance, to be sure, but has The Church ever explained why it's necessary for the likes of Vincent to go about wearing such outre outfits?

If Gays dressed up as Cardinals or Bishops, or whatever, and started capering about blessing one another and kissing each others' rings in public, no doubt there would be some sort of uproar and cries of "Blasphemy!" and maybe even "Persecution!"

 

After all, what's sauce for the goose..(which is an expression that seems to have nothing to do with the case here.)

 

But, we must suppose Nichols did The Right Thing here.

I recall hearing  of one utterly disgraceful incident during Benediction, when, while an altar boy was proceeding up the aisle swinging the smoking censer, one of the congregaytion leaned over and whispered loudly, "Excuse me, Sweetie-pie, but did you know your handbag's on fire?"

 

But, when I come to think about it, I might have made that up.



IRONY

When I downloaded, this lovely picture it was captioned "Angry Jesus." Well, "grumpy" might be nearer the mark. "Miffed," possibly?

"
http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/more-parables-for-our-time/

CP&S have reprinted this piece from "America: The National Catholic Review," a web magazine from, as one might reasonably expect, the U.S.

It is worth a read. And I have re-reprinted it, the link at least.
Spreading The Good Word!
The author - a Jesuit, may well I suspect, rue the day he wrote it.

It is, as you see, heavily ironic.
And several centuries in journalism have persuaded me that irony will  inevitably be taken literally by the vast majority of readers.
And the Jesuit will get a lot of frothing letters expressing horror at the willful misreading of Christ's message.
Personally I'm in favour of irony. Let the chips from the whiners' shoulders fall where they may.
But then, I'm not a Jesuit.

The illustration above also amused me; Jesus as what I've described before as "The Surbiton Hippy," though, as this is from America, let's call him "The San Francisco Hippy."
One thing he is clearly not is a Jew from Palestine. Not a swarthy product of the troubled and detestable  Middle East.

Wearing, it appears, a dressing gown over his spotless T-shirt, and with shoulder-length hair. And a goddam beard, already! Like Karl Marx! Probably a Commie!

It's the hair that gets me, though.
I enjoy imagining this "dude" showing up on the doorstep of some devout Irish-American Catholic, in Boston asking for a "...bit of bread, please, man.." only to be crisply advised to, "... go forth and multiply! " ..or words roughly to that effect,  "...And get a proper job, while you're about it. Long-haired bum."

But of course this scenario is not possible, as, thankfully, he'd never have got through immigration control anyway. Not looking like that.
So, that's all right.

Of course, there's always the chance that the Jesuit's offering will be treated, not with either approval or horror, but with utter indifference.
Could happen.
These matters interest me, but not, it seems, too many others these days. Which may be all to the good.

New Year's Revolution

Well, I, as Toad, have sacked myself from the day job on Catholicism Pure & Simple. I've been thinking for some months now that my presence there wasn't doing either of us any good.
Then yesterday, there was an "article" about a sort of crucifix which was so idiotic that it made me spit out the bullet, pull up the Rubicon, bite the drawbridge and throw the dummy out with the bath water, if you get my meaning.
Encouraging this lunacy had got to stop.

Exraordinary, that several regular contributors on the CP&S site are clearly intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate people.
But then, they believe things that a seven-year-old illiterate Patagonian peasant with a learning disability would find putting an undue strain to his credulity.

CP&S followed up today with a piece about Aids in Africa, illustrated by an absurd and practically obscene drawing.
Not that obscenity, in itself, really bothers me.
It's the principle of the thing.

The Catholic argument, against the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of Aids, seems to be that - very occasionally - they don't work. The condom breaks, or falls off, or whatever.

It's the same as  saying, "Let's not bother with seat belts, because they only prevent nine fatal accidents out of ten."
(Those figures are not "real" by the way, I made them up. To make the point.)

Enough of this tripe!

It's 2013!

And I have lived to see it! Only dimly, to be sure, but what the heck!

I'm not overly optimistic over what this year may bring the world in general, but we will soldier grimly on. We have no choice.

"Gods bless, us, every one, " says Tiny Toad.

Review of the Year (YAWN)

This episode is headed by the incredibly dreary label above, because I've written on Facebook how glad I am not to have to put together a twelve-page section  summing up the past year for any newspaper, any more.

It's never much fun, and this past year would be a particular pain to have to go back through because, for a lot of people, it's been fairly bloody.
What with the crisis and all.
Going to the dentist to have all one's teeth pulled out  is far more appealing.

But, Reb and I, and our families and assorted animals, have suffered mercifully little or nothing the last twelvemonth.
Nobody has been hospitalised except her Mother, who seems much better now. I think a chicken died, but they do that, and are buried like Christians, with due ceremony, as is their right.

In fact, for us, and Moratinos, it's been a year of growth and tranquillity.

The village now has its own restaurant and bar, grandly-named "El Castillo," and built into the bodegas, while we at The Peaceable have a new dog, Bella and a new cat, Moses, commonly known as Moe.

I seem to have spent the entire year arguing with Catholics about Gay Marriage, a subject with seemed trivial enough to me at first - why not, was my thought - but is, or so it would seem, the most momentous and potentially civilisation-threaterning event since The Russian Revolution.
Yes, I know I should know better, but, as Reb says, it keeps me off the streets and that is important as Moratinos only has two.

Anyway, here's a bit I was going to put on the catholic blog to which I contribute frequently. Far too frequently for some..

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pope-Benedict-condemns-gay-marriage-in-Christmas-speech-on-family-values-184545621.html

I really think Old Ben is simply mistaken in this case.

We all know about Alan Turing, because he's famous, but millions of people lived and died in fear, as a result of being born “gay.” We all know that. And they still do in, Nigeria, Uganda,  and suchlike moral swamps.

I have personally known men friends whose lives were made miserable from trying to avoid following their sexual “inclination,” because it was “sinful” and who have told me they wished they were not born so afflicted.

Because a lot of folk are simply born “gay.” God knows why. Possibly. 

Too late for Turing

It is Alan Turing Year, I discover. Just in time, too, with mere days of it left. Turing was a mathematical genius who did vital code-breaking  work during the war. He was also "gay," and committed suicide as a result of this failing on his part.

Ironic, I think, that it is also Gay Marriage Year, in no uncertain terms, albeit unofficial.

On CP&S, (q.v.) some will know, I'm involved in endless bickering about the rights and wrongs of this subject, but you'd have to go and look it up on there to get the whole rather dreary  picture.

Up until 1967, homosexual acts between men were illegal in England. Turing would have been 55 in 1967. Not too old to still be using his extraordinary brain for this sorry planet's benefit. But he'd been unable to curb that side of his nature, and had to pay for his "crime" thirteen years before.

It was his "cross," and he couldn't bear it.

I don't know what makes gays the way they are.
My suspicion is that they're born that way, and can do little about it.
They can follow their inclinations, or they can try not to, if they feel they morally shouldn't.
Much like the rest of us; like me, at least.

Those that do lead "gay" lives, do so still in the face of a good deal of often malicious prejudice. It's inevitable, and most of them can laugh at it.
What's more, several of them do so publicly, amusingly, and are well paid for it.
And why not? At least the fear of jail and blackmail has been largely removed.

Anyway, if Alan Turing had been born in 1982, instead of 1912, he might just be considering getting married right now.

And I, for one, would see no logical, moral, or practical reason for trying to prevent him.

Mile Stones

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rolling-stones/9741119/Mick-Jagger-on-the-ten-things-hes-learnt-about-rock-n-roll.html

The story on the link above caught my eye. In 1963, Pat Doncaster , the Daily Mirror's "disc" columnist, handed me a picture of the Stones posed outside a line of telephone booths.
I've seen it since but can't find it right now. But it was likely taken during the same session as the one above.

I looked at the snap, and asked Pat, "What's the point of them all being so ugly?" Pat didn't know, but assured me the lads were, "..going to be very big." It was one of the few things Pat got right.
One of his miscalulations was that smoking was, as he put it, "...good for the lungs. Toughens 'em up. Look at me. Smoked all my life and I'm trained like an astronaught."

Unsurprisingly, Pat went to his reward a good many years ago.

What is very surprising, however, is that Mick, Keith and Bill are still above ground. Alive! And even kicking a bit.
A glowing tribute to the healing and sustaining powers of debauchery,
I suggest.

And I myself am still alive, albeit a bit doddery. 

Which is -  I suppose - also mildly surprising, although I have led a life of almost monkish and scholarly rectitude and have very often been sober for several hours at a time.

Cause for a certain satisfaction, innit? Yeah!

The Earnest Importance of Being Gay

By some curious, yet not onerous, irony - Toad seems to have become, ipso facto, (whatever that means) spokesman for "The Gays" in certain quarters.

For he is not gay himself. However, as was at one time said about Jews, many of his friends are "Gay."

The word itself is tiresome, as we all agree - but what's the alternative? Queer? Not unfashionable among homosexuals themselves these days. But no, not for Toad at least. Gay it will be.

The gays are in the news all right. It seems they are all clamouring to get married. The "straights" on the other hand, appaear to have rather lost interest in what "Eton Dave" Cameron describes as "The Great Institution." (...and I won't make the old joke yet again)

More irony here with on one side people screaming, "Gays can't get married  - it's against the natural law!" and on the other people screaming "Gays are the only people who want to get married! It's natural to want to be married!"

Is it?
On the whole, the answer must be yes. People persist in doing it, often rashly, so it must be natural. But then,  people persist in being "Gay" often stubbornly, which is not natural, we are sternly informed. Hmmm.

So, the question for today is "Is being Gay "natural?"
If not, why did God (Yes, we're finally round to Him!) create, if that is the mot juste, so many of them?
Around 8% in the U.K. Toad has read; no way of confirming this figure, still, it'll do. One in twelve of us. Long odds but not astronomical. Enough to be the cause of trouble a good deal anyway.
Like with the Jews. (Among whom, Toad also has many friends.)

Second question for today: What is The Natural Law? Is flying in Boeing 792s natural? If God had wanted us to fly, wouldn't he have given us air miles? Does the fact that He doesn't (at least not to everyone) prove that He doesn't exist? No: Probably not.

Third question: If there is a Natural Law (which Jeremy Bentham highly doubted) is it wrong to break it?

Fourth question: Do miracles break The Natural Law? If they do, then why should not Gays?


I'm afraid there may be more questions to come on this highly overrated topic - maybe tomorrow.
The sun is finally up, and Reb is up and the dogs are up and baying in chorus like the wolves they once all were.
Times change, and today, I doubt if more than one dog is twelve is a wolf, and I've only got five, so I'm probably safe.
Walkies!

Going to Hell

Toad in dog Heaven. An "old" pic, as Bella (white) is now bigger than Harry (brown)

People must be wondering why Toad, (me) on CP&S, (Catholicism, Pure & Simple - it's neither, of course) keeps harping on about Eternal Damnation.

But maybe not – it's a concept of some significance if it happens to be true, and a shockingly revolting one if it isn't.

In fact, it's a shockingly revolting concept either way, when you think about it. Enough to give any child the heebie-jeebies! Did the Toadpole, at least! 

Lewis Carroll, a great genius and saintly man, whom Toad hugely admires, and who was an Anglican minister of sorts, said he could accept the whole of Christianity, apart from that one hideous aspect.
He probably had a few reservations about wicked old popes as well, but that's another topic altogether.

One of the CP&S team says that very likely only people who “Hate God” go to Hell.
Toad has great difficulty in understanding how anyone could hate God, but let's put that on one side, for now.
(Except what they might be hating is the idea of God. Which is clearly not the same thing. And anyway, their idea of God might be wrong. Probably is. What then?)

The real point of this laborious rumination, however, is that apparently attitudes are now considerably, relatively, different in the Catholic Church then they were some 55 years ago - when Toad was still in his teens.
Back then it wasn't necessary to “hate” God in order to be eternally damned – all that was required was to be in a state of mortal sin.

Which could be achieved, briskly and easily, by playing truant from Mass on Sundays, for no “good” reason.

How masturbation, and looking at a bikini-clad Brigitte Bardot in "Tit Bits Magazine," rated on the Mortal sin-scale chart is now vague to Toad.

It would be nice to be told if the Mass-missing bit is still relevant.

Oh, and this nightmarish scenario of devils endlessly poking you with toasting forks in an inferno could happen to anyone over seven, "The age of reason," an age, it would seem, that's still beyond Toad. To fill a small child's head with such pernicious nonsense , as the good nuns did to little Toadito was, in retrospect, a sin.
But it would be erroneous to imagine they saw it that way..

In Toad's youth, practically everything interesting was a sin.
Girls (in his case, not boys) were paramount. Just sexually lucky, apparently. As was dancing too close to girls. As was reading "The Three Musketeers," both activities which nowadays Toad does not have the slightest inclination to do. Tempi cambi.

More importantly, he was taught as a matter of absolute fact – not whimsical speculation – that no Non-Catholics were going to Heaven, and very likely not a great many Catholics either, particularly if they persisted in doing paper rounds on Sunday mornings.

Damned by association with the Press way back then!

Irony and prophecy seamlessly combined!

Someone else on CP&S suggested the idea of going to Hell for all eternity was “scary.”
Yes, the idea certainly is. The reality, if such it is is somewhat beyond scary. Way beyond. Insane, I think.

And the idea that a being of total goodness and all perfections could even consider not stopping someone, anyone, of manifestly inferior moral material to themselves, being sent there - is even scarier.

Because, if the sinner involved insists on going there - then he, or she, simply don't know what's good for them.

 

And should be pitied. And quickly put straight. Not infinitely casigated.

 

If my dogs insist on trying to run into the traffic, I prevent them. I want them to enjoythemselves and not feel constrained by the leads, but Free Will can go too far for their own good. And the idea that I treat them better than God treats humans is inescapable.

For what would God have to gain (or lose) from damning people?
Nothing. He does it for nothing, then?

So the hell with Hell.

But we shall see. Maybe. Quite soon. Possibly.

It's only natural...

The following is a recent post of mine on CP&S, to a friend on there called Kathleen. Self-explanatory, I hope.



“He (God) destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. “… says the Catechism.

As you know Kathleen, I’m normally and aimiably tolerant of the vagaries of religious thinking (What! You cry!!!) but in this case, after more reflection, I must hark back to your comment where you said:

“I must say that, believe it or not, every living creature has its place in nature, even mosquitoes! And certainly tigers do; grazing animals would increase too much and end up starving to death if there were no natural predators to keep their numbers down and eliminate the weak and sickly ones.
According to the Bible this beautiful and magnificent world was created by God and given into man’s hands to look after and care for.”

The Catechism quote above says nothing about man’s place in nature, as yours rightly and properly does.
The Catechism says “nature,” if you like, is there solely for our “good,” for our benefit.
That strikes me as disgusting and absurd, but we will let that go.

(I still can’t see what “good” dinosaurs ever did for the human race. Can we even assert that without dinosaurs there would have been no humans?
Not with any confidence, I suggest – but we will let that go, as well.)

The real question here is how, given that life has teemed on this planet for around two billion years, and human life as we know it for maybe 150,000 years – a minute scintilla of the timescale – how can anyone seriously assert that man’s function is, “…to look after and care for,” the other living creatures?
Living creatures were doing perfectly well before man finally got here.
On a time scale It’s like saying God put man in charge of the pet shop, which had been open since 9 am, one and a half seconds before the doors shut at 7 pm.

(How would you “look after” a cockroach, anyway? We’ll let that go, too.)

It’s also worth considering that tigers would go on happily culling grazing species regardless of whether man existed or not, as they did for countless aeons before “Homo Sapiens,” who is, we are told, “made in God’s image” evolved sufficiently to start polluting and fouling up the place.

It’s fair to say that without mankind, life on Earth would have been a whole lot less unpleasant.
In short, humanity has been a total disaster for this planet in many ways.

...Christ and St. Francis of Assisi and Rin Tin Tin (that's him) notwithstanding.

Camino Unreality

As most readers know, Reb and I live on the Camino Frances.
Have done for seven years now.
No need to explain what it is on here, I'm sure.

Lately, there have been some rumblings about happenings on The Camino and discussions on linked forums. The tone is often querelous, and generally involves - or relates to - money.
For several centuries, until maybe only five or six years ago, money was a secondary consideration to pilgrims and the people who provided them with beds and food - the albergues, in short.
In fact, the albergues were generally in monasteries, and underwritten by the charity of the wealthy ruling class.
As recently as 2006, when we arrived on the scene, to see a bowl with money in it at the albergue door with a message saying, "Take whatever you need, leave whatever you can," was not uncommon.
The bulk of albergues (also known as refugios) worked on a "donativo" basis - that is pilgrims would leave whatever contribution they could, or wanted to.
Which might be nothing.

But The Camino is becoming a victim of its own success. The number of participants (those who earn a "Compostela" at least ) has risen from 100,377 in 2006, to 183,877 in 2011.
The number of albergues and hostels catering to them has also zoomed up. Competition is sometimes fierce and occasionally vicious.

And the donativo ideal, overwhelmed by freeloaders and rising overhead costs, is a dead duck.

Spain is in crisis. The Camino is in crisis.

And possibly the reasons are not dissimilar. When we arrived in Spain, the European Union-driven economy was going gangbusters. Vast blocks of apartments and endless rows of terraced houses appeared apparently overnight, like the mushrooms in the few still-adjoining meadows.
This, even in places where the local population was already dwindling fast. Everyone thought the progress would never end, the money would always flow free. But wages were low, no one could afford the high-priced houses. Banks reined in the free funding, the developers went bust, then the banks went bust, too. Those new buildings stand empty now, their prices still well out of reach of the Spanish populace. One-fourth of the workers are unemployed. They´re saddled now with the debts of the banks that started the whole mess.

A different scenario, certainly, from the rapidly rising numbers on The Camino. But the reality in both cases was the unreality.

Yes, The Camino is not -  or is supposed not to be - about money.

Very few people open albergues with the intention of becoming rich.
But an extraordinarily large percentage of them seem to believe The Camino operates on much kinder and more forgiving standards than those of the rest of Planet Earth -- or Spain, for that matter.

And this is patently not so. A mortgage is a mortgage is a mortgage. Still, starry-eyed former pilgrims optimistically open albergues and guest houses and hostels, believing that God, or divine providence, or St. James will continue providing ever-growing numbers of well-off pilgrims to offset the cost of the regulation fire alarms, expensive emergency staircases, and stainless-steel kitchens.

Do any of them do any math before embarking on quixotic ventures involving "pilgrims"? Any more than they would buying a shiny new suburban villa?

The Camino, is for us, at least, a fine place to live: peaceful, endlessly interesting and often downright inspiring. And we have never regretted our own move here.
We were lucky, or smart. We paid cash for a beat-up mud farm in a dying town, instead of an overpriced suburban crackerbox with an expensive mortgage.
We don't rely on The Camino for a living.
And we never will. Please God. Or providence. Or St. James.




















..

Prudence rules, or should do

As you can see, this was written and posted yesterday, after a Thanksgiving lunch for  seven people: an Italian, a German lady, a Frenchwoman, a Spaniard, a Brit (me) and two Americans, Reb being one.
Spanish the lingua franca.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9691295/Nativity-donkeys-and-cattle-are-a-myth-says-Pope.html
Goodness! What a trying day Thanksgiving is turning out to be! First a lot of hoo-ha about trolls, then the above – and then yet another story from Pope Benedict claiming that Jesus wasn’t born on his birthday after all:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html

… All this on top of revelations that accounts of his (Jesus's) minute Mother-to-be wowing the assembled slippered pantaloons in the Temple with her reasoned argument for advocating skepticism regarding the metaphysical content of Logical Positivism, or whatever – were probably all made up by journalists.
What is the world coming to? is fast becoming Toad’s mantra.
And a lot of it is Pope Benedict’s doing.
The bit about the animals in the manger was particularly upsetting, as that seemed the most believable part of the story. If it was a manger, it was bound to have animals in it. Surely?

To be sure, none of thes above notions is essential belief for a Catholic. But they tend to come mixed in with other ideas that are considered essential.
To me, the idea that there were animals present at the birth of Christ is no more fanciful than, say, that God consists of three persons in one.
One what?
Simple Prudence suggests a certain amount of reserve concerning it all. (But then, she would.)

One of these days I'll get back to A Day In The Life Of Me. As soon as I can. Bit busy living, just now.